User talk:Dicklyon

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

A random style tip:

Another styletip ...


Formatting titles of literature and art


Use italics for the titles of works of literature and art, such as books, pamphlets, films (including short films), television series, music albums, and paintings. The titles of articles, chapters, songs, television episodes, and other short works are not italicized; instead, they're enclosed in double quotation marks.



Add this to your user page by typing in {{Styletips}}.

Please add new talk topics at the bottom of the page, and sign with ~~~~ (four tildes will expand into your signature).
I will reply here, and expect you to be watching my user talk page, even if you are Nyttend.

Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
I'm not sure why you haven't picked up a bevy of these already, but thanks for all your effort, particularly in tracking down good sources with diagrams, etc., on the photography- and color-related articles (not to mention fighting vandalism). Those areas of Wikipedia are much richer for your work. Cheers! —jacobolus (t) 02:05, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


Barnstar-camera.png The Photographer's Barnstar
To Dicklyon on the occasion of your photograph of Ivan Sutherland and his birthday! What a great gift. -User:SusanLesch 04:40, 23 May 2008 (UTC)


Allaroundamazingbarnstar.png All Around Amazing Barnstar
For your hard work in improving and watching over the Ohm's law article SpinningSpark 00:59, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


Original Barnstar.png The Original Barnstar
For your improvements to the Centrifugal force articles. Your common sense approach of creating a summary-style article at the simplified title, explaining the broad concepts in a way that is accessible to the general reader and linking to the disambiguated articles, has provided Wikipedia's readership with a desperately needed place to explain in simple terms the basic concepts involved in understanding these related phenomena. Wilhelm_meis (talk) 14:29, 6 May 2009 (UTC)


Surreal Barnstar.png The Surreal Barnstar
For your comment here which at once admits your own errors with humility yet focusses our attention upon the real villain Egg Centric (talk) 17:09, 9 February 2011 (UTC)


Barnstar-camera.png The Photographer's Barnstar
For your great contribution to Wikipedia in adding pictures and illustrations to articles improving the reader's experience by adding a visual idea to the written information.--Xaleman87 (talk) 05:57, 26 February 2014 (UTC)


Special Barnstar Hires.png The Special Barnstar
I could not find a barnstar for standing up to an outrageously unjust block so you get a special one. Hang in there. В²C 23:25, 3 February 2015 (UTC)


Resilient Barnstar Hires.png The Resilient Barnstar
For your work in standardising article titles in line with the now consistent MOS:JR guidance, I present you this accolade. Your continued work in this regard, and in others, has been appreciated. It may have taken years, but much was accomplished. RGloucester 14:44, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

thanks but[edit]

Thanks for the !vote at Talk:Trübsee, but could you move it to the correct section? Andrewa (talk) 05:55, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Done. Dicklyon (talk) 06:00, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Andrewa (talk) 10:47, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

User talkpage reversion[edit]

Hi Dicklyon, I'm curious as to how you came to/why you saw fit to make a 3rd party 'drive by' edit to my talkpage on behalf of User:Checkingfax? --Kevjonesin (talk) 06:46, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

I think my reasoning was well expressed in the edit summary. See if you agree. Dicklyon (talk) 06:48, 2 February 2017 (UTC)
Or, instead of "cut it out" you could double down in being that way, which I see you have done. Oh, well. Dicklyon (talk) 00:42, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Regarding recent refactoring/deletion in my user space and name calling[edit]

--Kevjonesin (talk) 11:22, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

WP:ANI notice[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Kevjonesin (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Congratulations...[edit]

...on being published. If you have time you should write a quick essay on how you managed to write it in a style different from the one you are accustomed to using. It seems to be an inordinately difficult task for some folks. Primergrey (talk) 01:06, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

It's really not a big deal to follow a style guide. And I wouldn't say that WP is what I'm accustomed to; I never did LQ before (but I like it), and most styles do use Title Case for titles and headings; for good reasons, WP does not. It's all good. Dicklyon (talk) 01:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Oh, one more thing: buy a copy: [1]. Or email me for a free preview. Dicklyon (talk) 05:47, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Nice, congrats. I'll suggest the book to my local library. Back in the day I knew a blind fellow, Harvey Lauer, who tested and promoted one of the first braille-to-sound machines (added link), which at the time seemed to be a pioneering machine in the field (don't know if that's related to the book, and haven't thought of Harvey in years). Randy Kryn 18:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for that, Randy. My stuff goes the other direction, analyzing sound rather than producing it, mostly. Dicklyon (talk) 20:38, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Bad faith[edit]

In short, a "bad faith user" (as you can probably guess) is just a user that primarily edits in bad faith. DarkKnight2149 01:53, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Oh, like a bad-faith user! I get it! Dicklyon (talk) 01:58, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
I guess you didn't get my friendly hyphen ribbing. Dicklyon (talk) 01:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I guess I didn't. DarkKnight2149 02:02, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
It worked better here. Less subtle, right next to a relevant heading. Dicklyon (talk) 02:12, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Katherine Johnson[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Katherine Johnson. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Fringe[edit]

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Generation Snowflake move closure[edit]

Hi, this is just to let you know I intend to ask for a review of the closure. Normally a non-admin shouldn't make a "no consensus" closure of a move or deletion discussion and I think this needs to be re-examined. REgards. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:21, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Move review for Generation Snowflake[edit]

An editor has asked for a Move review of Generation Snowflake. Because you closed the move discussion for this page, or otherwise were interested in the page, you might want to participate in the move review. MaxBrowne (talk) 09:32, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

Rail line templates[edit]

Just as an FYI, I haven't been touching the templates of any rail line move discussion that has been closed as move. I've been trying to cleanup the articles to use the new title, but didn't want to mess with the templates since I'm not particularly familiar with the rail line ones. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Right; me, too. I tried fixing a template or two some time ago and got scolded for not understanding how their names and contents interacted with other stuff, so I'll let that to the project experts to decide what to do with. Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
And thanks for all your work closing and cleaning up! Dicklyon (talk) 19:26, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the last thing I want is to get into a discussion on the complexities of rail line templates, so leaving it to them does seem to make the most sense. Not a problem on the closes. I hate seeing backlogs, and decided to take a break from the NPP backlog today. Glad to be of help. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:42, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

That's what I said[edit]

What I said was it is not an analogy, which it isn't. What I said in my edit comment was was "reflection from the ionosphere etc" -- the etc meant things like "refraction." The paragraph AS WRITTEN is incorrect. It should be re-written, and in fact I don't know any secondary source who would agree with evident intentions. I am re-reverting you edit until we clarify this. Using the word "analogy" as the previous edit said is incorrect -- it is NOT an analogy -- and WP needs to be correct. LaurentianShield (talk) 16:24, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

And my point was that light is a poor analogy for radio, since the straight-line propagation model is an approximation for short wavelengths, which is not so applicable to radio until you get up to pretty high frequencies (that is, your edit summary assertion that "they are exactly the same and do travel in straight lines" is not true enough to justify your edit). I'll see if I can find a source to support this interpretation of what Hertz was thinking, or something somewhat different that would support a rewrite. Dicklyon (talk) 16:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for the response. I think you see that the problem I have is saying light and radio waves are merely analogous, not that they don't have different properties at different wavelengths (insofar as their interaction with matter). In fact I seriously doubt that Hertz would have thought they did. However, was he possibly wrong about the necessity of line-of-sight? A good source that I have right here is The Making of the Electrical Age by Harold Sharlin. According to a quote on page 90, Hertz believed radio waves needed to be focused with mirrors. This is a different issue altogether than not anticipating ionospheric reflection (which is the most important phenomenon in long-range propagation) or refraction (which actually hardly matters for ordinary radio waves). LaurentianShield (talk) 17:02, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Well, books generally say he understood quite well the wavelengths, diffraction, reflection, etc. But I don't see any explaining why he dismissed practical use for communications and such. The stuff about straight lines is generally attributed to other scientists skeptical of Marconi, a bit later, before anyone thought of a reflecting layer in the atmosphere. Dicklyon (talk) 18:07, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
Maybe move this discussion to the Hertz Talk page? I started a thread: Talk:Heinrich Hertz#Removal of paragraph on radio wave/light analogy on it. --ChetvornoTALK 21:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon invitation for February 22[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas.

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages (including beer and wine) plus light snacks.


Please note: You should RSVP here, and bring a photo ID that matches your registration name. This also helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in.


For further details, see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, February 2017


See you soon! Ben Creasy and Wayne | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 06:47, 15 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Reza Aslan[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Reza Aslan. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Badgering[edit]

Your continual badgering of myself and other editors who disagree with you, as you did here is getting rather wearing. We may or may not be correct but we have a right to state our opinions without having them continuously questioned. Please stop it. Optimist on the run (talk) 05:38, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

How does my citing of observations from evidence get interpreted as questioning of opinions? Or badgering? I don't get it. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Ah, there were two parts to my edit you linked. In the second part, I pinged you to remind you that I had asked if you had any evidence, or if the presentation of evidence had changed your mind. I guess the answer is no to both. It's cool. Dicklyon (talk) 06:10, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, since it closed just after I pinged you, I realize that may be annoying. Sorry about that. Dicklyon (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Daily News[edit]

Hi. Booo. But on your comment that the title can't be partially italicized, yes, it can by using a 'DISPLAYTITLE' template. So that option is there, if you'd like to explore it or change your close. Thanks. Randy Kryn 18:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying; I updated there. Dicklyon (talk) 18:56, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I was wrong, on a practice edit the newspaper infobox seems to override any new 'DISPLAYTITLE' code. Am pretty sure there's a way around it, I've just never memorized it. Randy Kryn 21:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, a parameter would need to be added to the ibox, |italic title=no, so either {{DISPLAYTITLE}} or {{Italic title}} could be used external to the ibox. Also, the Italic title's "string" parameter makes it even easier: {{Italic title|string=Daily News}}  Paine Ellsworth  put'r there  08:43, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Bay Area WikiSalon February reminder[edit]

Please join us in downtown San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

Wednesday, February 22, 2017 at 6 p.m.


For details and to RSVP: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, February 2017


See you soon! Ben Creasy and Wayne (co-coordinators) | (Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Ty Law[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Ty Law. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

Undiscussed moves[edit]

I was very tempted to revert your move of Sutton Park Line on a technicality - you may have discussed on at WT:UKT, but you made no mention that you were doing so on the article's talk page. There may be other editors like myself who have specific railway line articles on their watchlist but not necessarily WT:UKT, so if you are discussing a move it is essential that notification is placed on the appropriate talk page. Please ensure you do this for any other articles you are discussing. Optimist on the run (talk) 22:56, 26 February 2017 (UTC)

Optimist, please do revert the move if you think it's incorrect or needs discussion. It's unlikely that I'm going comply with your request, since the people who care about such things all appear to be involved on the project page. Dicklyon (talk) 23:02, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
So you have full information about who's watching any given article? Interesting - please share how you do this. Optimist on the run (talk) 23:05, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm only suggesting that most British rail fans who care about such things, such as yourself, are likely to be involved in the project. Others who are watching will see the move, with the link to the discussion, and can join in at that time, or revert the move. As I pointed out before, reverts are cheap; there's no big cost of an error, and errors are rare, so adding extra work is not justified except when there's reason to think the move might be controversial. Dicklyon (talk) 23:22, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Do you believe you are following due process? If so, fine; if not, is your argument basically 'due process is too much like hard work' ? Rjccumbria (talk) 00:11, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
What process do you believe is "due" here? I'm following part of the process that I proposed at the project talk page, which so far nobody has objected to. The alternate process that Mjroots had me following before, involving lots of RM discussions on things that had no chance of being controversial, did get some pushback, and didn't even make him happy; it just created lots of extra work and noise for everyone. But let me know if that's that you would prefer. Dicklyon (talk) 00:16, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
As I understand it, before making a page move you are seeking the views of those watching the project page, but are not attempting to take on board the views of those watching the page to be moved. Offhand, it would seem to me that - whatever the fine detail of 'due process' - if the move doesn't merit discussion, it doesn't merit discussion with anyone: if it does merit discussion, then that discussion should be with everyone who has an interest in the page. The observation that those watching the project page have not objected doesn't address the more interesting question of what those left out of the discussion might feel about that approach. ('I have already discussed this with the people who matter, but I didn't think it was worth asking you' would be one interpretation of it.)
A simple mention on the talk page of each page under discussion that that a potential move is under discussion on the project page would seem to me to avoid any unnecessary apparent/unintentional discourtesy to those who are not 'railfanboys' but watch individual lines (perhaps because they are their local lines). That, I would have thought, could be done without too much extra effort by a standard message ; to minimise 'old ground being gone over again' it might be wise for the standard message to explain the methodology, and hence why objections to down-casing are unlikely to be sustained, but I would see that as advisable rather than essential.Rjccumbria (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
There certainly seems to be a case to answer for the Sutton Park Line. I think it should be reverted and discussed. G-13114 (talk) 22:51, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I reverted that one per your request. We can discuss. Dicklyon (talk) 23:09, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Each proposed move absolutely must be listed on the article’s talk page. Time and time again I have come across editors who have only a single—or very few—railway lines on their watch list, because their interest/expertise is for a particular locale. Useddenim (talk) 12:25, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Cambrian Line[edit]

Just to let you know I've requested a reversion of the move of Cambrian Line at User talk:Anthony Appleyard, for reasons specified there. Incidentally, whilst reversions of edits can be considered "cheap", this does not always apply to page moves, especially where administrative actions are required. Firstly page moves often always require updates to any redirects to the page (such as Cambrian Coast Line). Secondly, where an administrator is required to move a page, reversion may be considered wheel warring, which is usually against policy. (In this case, reversion may be allowed, but I take a 0RR view of reverting admin actions, i.e. I choose not to). Optimist on the run (talk) 13:00, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Yes, good, that's been reverted per your request; happy to discuss that one, even though the proposal to move it at the project page was unopposed for a week. Dicklyon (talk) 15:22, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

2017 Art And Feminism Wikipedia Editathon @ CCA[edit]

You are invited! - Friday, March 10 - SF CCA ArtAndFeminism 2017
Arts+Feminism logo
Please join us at the California College of the Arts'
Simpson Library
on Friday March 10, 2017, for
an event aimed at collaboratively expanding Wikipedia articles covering Art and Feminism, and the biographies of women artists!

--Jscarboro (talk)

Please comment on Talk:Donald Trump[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Donald Trump. Legobot (talk) 04:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Dash/hyphen in a title?[edit]

I think List of highest funded equity crowdfunding projects needs a dash/hyphen in its title, though I am dumb as to exactly where. Can you help? --Izno (talk) 13:30, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

At least in highest-funded. Go for it. Dicklyon (talk) 15:44, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Natalie Portman[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Natalie Portman. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Please comment on Talk:Sean Spicer[edit]

The feedback request service is asking for participation in this request for comment on Talk:Sean Spicer. Legobot (talk) 04:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Mark Barr has been nominated for Did You Know[edit]

Updated DYK query.svg Hello, Dicklyon. Mark Barr, an article you either created or to which you significantly contributed,has been nominated to appear on Wikipedia's Main Page as part of WikiProject Did you knowDYK comment symbol. You can see the hook and the discussion here. You are welcome to participate! Thank you. APersonBot (talk!) 12:02, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

Xxx Tunnel/tunnel[edit]

You might want work on fixing this titling. Useddenim (talk) 12:28, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

What do you have in mind? Did you notice some with unnecessary capitalization? Why not go ahead and fix them yourself? Dicklyon (talk) 02:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Twin Peaks Tunnel. Working on other things; this seems to be your area of interest. Useddenim (talk) 15:12, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Your invitation: Bay Area WikiSalon series at Noisebridge[edit]

Please join us in San Francisco!
A Wikipedia panel discussion about journalism

The last Wednesday evening of every month, wiki enthusiasts gather at Bay Area WikiSalon to collaborate, mingle, and learn about new projects and ideas. This month we are meeting at Noisebridge makerspace/hackerspace in the Mission near 16th Street BART (temporary change of venue). The good news is this means that you can bring spontaneous guests if you forget to RSVP!

We allow time for informal conversation and working on articles. Newcomers and experienced wiki users are encouraged to attend. Free Wi-Fi is available so bring your editing devices. We will have beverages (including beer and wine) plus light snacks.


If possible, please RSVP as it helps us figure out how much food and drink to bring in. For further details and to RSVP, please see: Wikipedia:Bay Area WikiSalon, March 2017


See you soon! Co-coordinators Ben Creasy and Wayne
(Subscribe/Unsubscribe to this talk page notice here) | MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 02:06, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

«Zeiss formula»[edit]

Dear Dick,

re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeiss_formula

Under https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Zeiss_formula I've added the new address of the source in question.

--SR-7v (talk) 11:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks; I updated in the link in the ref on the article. Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)

A favor, SVP[edit]

I wonder if you'd be so kind as to do a GA review, when the time comes, of Harry R. Lewis? I'd like to get it promoted to GA, and then through DYK, by mid-April. EEng 03:18, 24 March 2017 (UTC)

I could try; I have no experience doing GA reviews. Point me at some instructions or hints? Dicklyon (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks! Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations/Instructions#Reviewing, but also WP:GANOT. It's meant to be a quite lightweight process. We're not quite ready to nominate the article yet, thought. EEng 03:19, 26 March 2017 (UTC)